📨 SWANK Dispatch: You Said the Threshold Wasn’t Met — So Why Was I Ever on Your Radar?
🗓️ 3 November 2023
Filed Under: social worker gaslighting, closed-case hypocrisy, safeguarding theatre, RBKC procedural fluff, institutional deflection, chronic illness dismissal, sewer gas impact, retaliatory referral, threshold misuse
“You said I didn’t meet the threshold.
But I was still assessed.
Still watched.
Still referred.
Still traumatised.”
— A Mother Who Has Survived More Than One System’s Curiosity
This tepid reply from Eric Wedge-Bull, following a safeguarding referral instigated by a misinformed doctor at St. Thomas’, showcases the now-familiar bureaucratic manoeuvre: acknowledge concern, admit no failure, offer no repair.
Despite admitting that:
The threshold of concern was not met
No further action was needed
The family declined support
…the case still:
Triggered yet another official assessment
Was linked to a hospital encounter rooted in medical ignorance
Failed to note the ongoing environmental hazard (sewer gas exposure)
🚮 I. What Was Actually Happening
Polly had:
Severe symptoms of sewer gas poisoning
Chronic eosinophilic asthma, which the attending physician failed to understand
Attended A&E for support, only to be referred for child abuse
Explained herself clearly — yet the system defaulted to suspicion
🎭 II. The Social Worker’s Performance
Eric writes:
“Apologies if our last ending felt unclear to you…”
Translation: We decided the case was nothing, but couldn’t say so directly because paperwork.
“We agreed that the concerns… did not reach our threshold of involvement.”
But you were involved. You completed an assessment. You just didn’t find evidence.
That’s not exoneration. That’s institutional voyeurism.
📌 III. SWANK Summary
The only thing more exhausting than illness
is being observed while ill
by people who know nothing
and write everything.
If there’s no threshold,
there should be no file.